As this case is ostensibly about business record entries. I believe that Daniels was primarily called as a witness to dirty up the defendant.
I would always ask for a sidebar and a proffer prior to this type of adverse testifying. After opposing counsel makes his proffer, I’d ask the court to place strict and guardrails on the testimony. At the moment the witness oversteps the strict parameters, I’d object and at sidebar move for a mistrial.
From the story, it appears that defense counsel may have sat on their hands. Ugh!
From the story, it appears that defense counsel may have sat on their hands. Ugh!
I doubt your hypothesis. I suspect that the Judge went ahead because he is prejudicial. Specifically, Stormy
Daniels and her lawyers have already signed affidavits that she didn’t have sex with Trump. Sincerely, the Judge should have probably intervened in this trial the minute the prosecution could provide no hard evidence of a crime, and no evidence that Trump was directly involved in the decisions.
I have no faith in the NY justice system, and would never invest in anything in NY again.
Big fear that Trump doesn’t have access to solid counsel since it is known that defending Trump leads to harassment, disbarment and jail.
Jonathan Turley just eviscerated the judge for allowing the testimony. The Defense DID attempt to object to her testimony but was over ruled. The judge claiming he was concerned for lack of objections when the defense objected to her even being there.
All of this is just being used to embarrass Donald Trump..I dont believe for ONE second that she had sex with Trump..I do believe she had an affair, with Michael Cohen, for a long time starting in 2006 that is what I believe..Trump is the victim here, of extortion. If Daniels wanted to she could have gone to the press at any time with her story but instead she went to the Trump Organization asking for money that is what happened here, she should be the one in prison
1) Seems like Trump’s lawyer got a woman to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (thousands of these are signed every day).
2) That magically became a felony violation of federal election law (Not really clear how).
3) Now it’s basically a rape trial, because Trump is more powerful than her.
Since he wasn’t her employer or landlord, and she presumably was making a living already, what was the power imbalance?
Trump did not even touch her. H3 is a germaohobe, and she is germ filled.
Yeah sure. The most famous germaphobe on the planet had sex with that human toilet. Just like he had Russian hookers pee on the bed he was sleeping in.
I think his counsel has been doing a lot of that.
Sensible attorneys would have done what you described. Trump’s Defense seems more interested in creating grounds for appeal than getting a not-guilty verdict.
Now the jury is going to rationize that Trump deserves punishment for preying on a poor little professional sex worker. I want the cross examination to include this:
With how men and women have you have engaged in sexual relations during your lifetime —an order of magnitude will do? Hundreds? Thousands? Have you ever lied under oath or signed a false statement? Do you recognize this statement in which you state that you never had an “affair” (meaning a sexual encounter) with Trump? Is it correct that in previous statements on video, you said you signed this letter. Why did you sign it? Your testimony today directly contradicts your signed statement. Which time are you lying? Did you testify five minutes ago that you have never signed a false statement? How could anyone believe anything you say?
Then ask the judge to strike her testimony from the record and instruct the jury to remove it from their minds.
I am holding fire on judging the defense counsel until cross.
Just as Stormy wanted revenge on Trump, I have a feeling that Mr. Avenatti wants revenge on Stormy and has fed the Trump team plenty of material for cross examination.
Isn’t this kind of irrelevant prejudicial “testimony” grounds for dismissal?
Ya think? Well, you finally got it right then.
How is all that stuff that alledgely happened in 2006 probative or relevant? Why is New York not stepping in and stopping this trial immediately. It is highly prejudicial not only to this trial, but all future trials, as well as the current election. New York is opening itself up to a massive lawsuit.
They did not. The defense submitted a motion for mistrial and it was denied by the deeply execrable Judge Merchan.
Relevance... OVER RULED!!!
Hookers are going to be hookers.
She’s a porn star, and she’s looking for fame and money. Every ruler or politician probably has a sexual past that would not fit the Puritan morals this country used to demand in its leaders—but we are SO far past that day! JFK, LBJ, Clinton—theh all had sexual escapades...at this point I just care about who is the best to be the leader. It’s definitely NOT JB! And RFK,Jr is a Democrat & too liberal. So, I’ll take Trump, regardless of the sexual escapades. He’s not selling out this country or our allies. He’s not opening the birder and our money’s up to illegals. I’ll take Trump. I don’t care what the porn star says!